An Analysis of Remake Hate

For discussion of Matt Reeve's Film Let Me In

Moderator: LMI Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
EEA
Posts: 4739
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 5:53 pm

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by EEA » Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:39 am

That's it. I had enough. I thought this was a forum were people respect other's opinion. I read his post and I don't see that he was attacking anyone.

User avatar
sauvin
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:52 am
Location: A cornfield in heartland USA

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by sauvin » Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:44 am

jetboy wrote:Well I have to say what isnt being said, or few people have said and that the hate was started by the OP. The hate was started by the guy who is complaining about the hate. It isnt an analysis at all but a rant, out of nowhere. Read what he is saying. He is speaking from a position that assumes his position is the correct one. He never once takes the position from the other side. Granted people like myself should use their ignore buttons more but lets get the story right.
It may even be as you say. If we have to be ungenerous, let's call it a troll. Trolling is permitted under forum rules "so long as they provoke interesting conversation" (or words to such effect). Heed the warning posted earlier in this thread and attack the ideas, not the people.
Fais tomber les barrières entre nous qui sommes tous des frères

jetboy
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by jetboy » Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:44 am

Well I think it would make a great topic. On one side you have the fact that storytellers have been inspired by the stories of before and on the other side, people who have taken advantage of the stories of before, and lots of grey area in between. Explore that from a nuetral standpoint, so we can discuss it.

Also, I understand the rules but if it was a troll, why cant I say that? Why do I have to beat around the bush but the troll have free reign? Im attacking the article not the person.

User avatar
sauvin
Moderator
Posts: 3410
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:52 am
Location: A cornfield in heartland USA

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by sauvin » Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:46 pm

jetboy wrote:Well I think it would make a great topic. On one side you have the fact that storytellers have been inspired by the stories of before and on the other side, people who have taken advantage of the stories of before, and lots of grey area in between. Explore that from a nuetral standpoint, so we can discuss it.
The topic exists. If its "standpoint" isn't exactly "neutral", bear in mind that topic drift is a fact of life on WTI, and the topic's "standpoint" can very easily be "neutralised" in a more appropriate manner.
jetboy wrote:Also, I understand the rules but if it was a troll, why cant I say that? Why do I have to beat around the bush but the troll have free reign? Im attacking the article not the person.
By way of "beating around the bush" answer, let's look at a previous post:
jetboy wrote:What BS. Your the one coming out swinging, acting like we started the fight.

And also this NOT an analysis by any stretch of the imagination because you dont consider all sides. Picking this apart would be an exercise in futility seeing it has SO many faults. I also have to consider the source of such BS and realize you arent going to consider a word written because youre only interested in being right.
"What BS" is an explicit statement that the post provoking this reaction has zero or negative value in its entirety.

Calling the provoking post "not an analysis ... because [it doesn't] consider all sides" makes the presumption that all other "analyses" in this forum do consider all sides. My own feeble attempts at analysis certainly try to, but I doubt I've ever succeeded, and the same is probably true of most other "analyses" in the forum. This is the value of true discussion: to help add missing perspectives, to help strengthen weakly examined points and to eliminate whatever might be invalid. This "not an analysis" statement would be a truism at best, if it were true that the OP's post were not an attempt at analysis.

The statement "picking [it] apart would be an exercise in futility because it has SO many faults" may or may not be true, but it also need not be said. The quoted post contains no mention of what these alleged faults might be. The only valid response to faulty analysis is counter-analysis; this statement is merely tantamount to saying dismissively "you're an idiot".

The most damning statement is this: "I also have to consider the source of such BS and realize you arent going to consider a word written because youre only interested in being right." This is a direct personal attack; an ad hominem form. There's nothing "tantamount" to this statement. It clearly "considers the source" (in just as clearly an unflattering light), flatly states the OP is unable or unwilling to entertain valid discussion and imputes a childish motivation for this unwillingness or inability.

If if it's true that the OP is feeling a bit besieged by remake haters in general and LMI haters in specific, and he's "come out swinging", calling us all a bunch of semi-educated fools who don't understand the transmission of culture, and suchlike, and so on, he did so indirectly, attacking nobody specifically and (at least superficially) attacking a perceived phenomenon in general. Whatever the motivation might be, if it's not a "true" analysis, it's a troll post that has the value (if none other) of potentially sparking interesting conversation. "You're an idiot" is not interesting conversation; a survey of remakes whose ratings or box office scores (adjusted for inflation) or critical reception fared better than the originals would have been much more interesting, informative, and would have served much better to refute the offending argument. This would be the "beating around the bush" required.

This is where the higher standard comes into play. This forum might be a sandbox the size of a planet, but most of us don't even remember what it's like to be schoolchildren.

Thus, the warning to heed this warning posted earlier in this topic:
There will be no more personal attacks. You will attack ideas, and you will argue them. You will not ascribe ulterior motives or character flaws to the people who bring them, and you will not simply dismiss their arguments pre-emptively as unfounded, ill-informed or outright ignorant. You will express disagreement with the argument given at face value, and you will explain the basis for said disagreement.

You will be held to a higher standard.
This constitutes a second public warning.
Fais tomber les barrières entre nous qui sommes tous des frères

User avatar
JToede
Posts: 869
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 1:37 am
Location: Sage WY

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by JToede » Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:18 pm

EEA wrote:That's it. I had enough. I thought this was a forum were people respect other's opinion. I read his post and I don't see that he was attacking anyone.
We should settle this old school
Image
Enough with my silliness, now back to the discussion.
Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire.

User avatar
PeteMork
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Menlo Park, California

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by PeteMork » Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:55 pm

Lee Kyle wrote:This article does not discuss hatred of remakes because they are lousy movies, but rather hatred of remakes because they are remakes. Most remakes are mediocre at best, of course, because all movies are mediocre at best. Some viewers, however, exhibit a priori hatred of all remakes, regardless of whether said movies are good, bad, or somewhere in between. What are the origins of this remake hate?

1) Lack of formal education. Literary scholars claim there are three kinds of stories in the world: Quest, War, Romance. If this is true, then all movies, novels, and dramas are remakes. The same story is getting told over and over again. If a book, play, or film strikes a person as new, it is not because the story is actually new, but because the hearer of the story is young and/or uneducated. He has not yet been exposed to enough stories to realize that every story is a remake.
We have all had the experience of entering into the home of an elderly person who used to read extensively. Thousands of books fill the person’s house, and upon examination it is obvious he has read them all. Yet he no longer reads much. Why not? Because he discovered that every book is a remake. Picking up a “new” book inevitably reminds him of this fact, and he can’t handle it. His solution: stop reading, stop watching movies, stop attending plays.
[I don’t think this is a healthy response to the realization that there are no new stories, but neither is hating remakes because they are remakes. Such a reactionary mentality leads to one end, of course: hating everything.]
Study Homer or Shakespeare for a year, and you will discover that all stories, regardless of their format (novel, play, movie, etc.), are remakes. Consume only modern books and films, and it will take you longer to realize this. Regardless, when a person engages in reactionary remake hate, it shows he is still an intellectual child. He has not yet imbibed the critical mass of stories that will grant him the realization all people experience if they live long enough: there is nothing new under the sun.
First, Lee cannot simply change the definition of “remake” to suit himself in order to prove a point. It simply doesn’t work that way. That’s why we have dictionaries.

Even so, it’s not that his observations are wrong (the IF part of his argument). It’s that his conclusions are unsupported by his observations (the ‘THEN’ part of his argument). His observations about older readers may be true in some generalized sense, but his reasons are not. If these three kinds, 36 kinds (or 3,600) have all been read, and we can agree that there are a finite number which you and I and the countless other crotchety old men have read, then explain LTROI to me. Is it number 3,601 on the list? A new story type we haven’t read before? Or does it fall into the stale, artless, erudite old 3-type theory under “Romance”? We’ve all read tales of romance. After the 100th or so, wouldn’t we be bored to death by them if Lee were right? We certainly would if they were all ‘remakes’ of the first. The effect this film and novel had on me and most everyone else on this forum, flies in the face of Lee’s conclusion. All by itself, it completely destroys his THEN.

It’s really all about the concept of ‘degrees of separation,’ which drives all of our copyright laws, and is not addressed in any way by Lee. LMI is a remake in the real world. Without JAL’s permission to remake his “Romance”, MR would have been sued for damages under the copyright laws. LTROI is not. No descendent of an ancient Greek playwright is going to sue JAL for damages under the 3-type law. Lee’s conclusion is simply …not successfully proven. In so many ways.

Shelly once wrote, “Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass, stains the white radiance of Eternity.” In the worst-case scenario, there may be only Lee’s three types of stories, but there are billions of readers, each of whom reads through his own, unique dome of glass. Some of them may even be inspired to write something NEW as a result. And I stress ‘new’ deliberately. There may be only 3 ‘categories’ of stories, but there are an infinite number of ways to tell one of these stories, all more different from one another than those original three categories are from each other. The significance of these simplistic categories of differences is completely lost in the background noise of these wonderful tales, which we then read through our own murky domes, and retell ad infinitum. Three types of stories? What a boring idea this is! It makes me hope that, rather than a finite number of types of stories, there is a finite number of artless ideas in the world.
Lee Kyle wrote: 2) Lack of identification with movie-makers. I assume the critics of remakes feel at least some creative and artistic impulses, or they would not be watching movies. I assume said critics also work for a living, and expect to get paid for their work. Remake haters don’t hate themselves because they like stories and like to earn money. Yet somehow directors and movie studios are evil because they like telling stories and like getting paid.
Why is it somehow bad or evil that a person wants to retell a story? If that’s what he wants to do, that’s what he wants to do. His expression of his personal creative impulse does not hurt you in any way. No one is forcing you to buy a ticket to his movie, discuss his movie, or pay any attention whatsoever to his movie. He is free to retell a story. You are free to ignore it. He’s a human being doing what he wants to do with his life. How is this harmful to anyone?
Those who hate remakes because they are remakes complain in such intriguing idioms: “Why do they always have to remake movies?” “This remake is unnecessary.” “They’re just remaking it because they are greedy.” As though the phrase “have to” can be applied to any act of artistic expression. As though any film is “necessary.” As though wanting to earn a living is somehow wrong.
If director and crew want to retell a story, if a teams of actors want to act out that story, and if a studio wants to finance the effort, that’s their business. No one is making them do it. No one is making you pay attention to them doing it. They want to retell a story and make money doing it. How is this bad? Wrong? Harmful? They want to retell a story and make money doing it? Sounds human. Hating them because they are human is rather ironic. They remake movies, not because they are different than us, but because they are like us.
“Lack of Identification with movie-makers” seems to imply that movie makers always, or almost always retell their stories because their creative juices are flowing and they have, besides the obvious motive of making money, a strong personal creative impulse that is not to be denied. Nor should it. More power to them if they have the money, influence, and talent to pull it off. But we in turn have no obligation whatsoever to be so open-minded about this process that our brains fall out. We all have experiences with remakes; some good and some bad. In my own personal experience with remakes (or sequels, by the way), the bad generally outweigh the good. Others may have a different opinion, which I totally respect. But just because I have a negative view of remakes, doesn’t mean I’m not capable of being objective when I first see one. Everyone has opinions—some strong and some weak—about almost everything. I find it extremely unlikely that there are anywhere near the number of folks out there that are rigid enough on this point to require their own category.
Lee Kyle wrote: 3) Desire to appear sophisticated and erudite. In some circles you are only considered intelligent if you express a priori hatred of all remakes. “The original is better” becomes a mindless mantra granting you acceptance into some craven circle of intellectual wannabes. I think this is the primary drive behind many online posters. They feel some silly need to prove how superior they are to us lesser mortals who would dare to enjoy a remake.
As a reminder, this article is not discussing the hatred of bad remakes because they are bad, but the reactionary hatred of all remakes regardless of whether they are good, bad, or somewhere in-between. You can prove you are not a reactionary by listing a few films you love that art house critics despise. For example, I really enjoy the movies Independence Day, Hancock, and Battleship. Acknowledging my delight in such mindless fare shows that pleasing some self-appointed guild of elitist snobs does not govern my movie criticism. I like a movie because I like it, not because some Eurotrash prick tells me I should like it. This approach is then expanded to include remakes (i.e., every movie ever made).
This one actually puzzled me the more carefully I read it, until I realized it was more likely an attack on a straw man. I’m not convinced that there are people really alive and breathing that fall into this category, although I begrudgingly admit there may be a few that approach it from afar. Certainly none on this forum. I’ve only met them in one or more of Lee’s three types of stories, and in that case, he’s right. They are quite boring and predictable. (Really Lee? “Battleship?!!” :D )
Lee Kyle wrote: 4) Not understanding the process of cultural transmission. All great stories get retold. No story becomes a permanent part of a culture unless it gets retold over and over again, generation after generation. If such retellings, reimaginings, remakings do not occur, the story vanishes: in a hundred years, no one has heard of it.
If people want to remake a movie, novel, or play, it is a sign they love the story so much, they want it to last. They want new generations to learn and love the story, and make it their own. They want the story to become an abiding part of their culture. The story lasting matters to them.
“People should just watch the original.” A ridiculous assertion. How does the word “should” belong in such a discussion? What moral obligation does a person have to watch the “original” rather than a remake? “The original is better.” Maybe so. The fact that it is better still does not permit use of the word “should.” We’re talking about art, after all. How can the word “should” ever be used in connection with artistic preference?
The dark irony of remake hate is that remakes are the best advertising for the original movie, play, novel. You don’t get people watching a 40-year-old movie by telling them to watch it. You get them watching the original by presenting such an incredible remake that it engenders a desire to explore the original source material.
This is why directors and authors love remakes, of course: remakes create new generations of fans who would never otherwise have discovered the original. So if you really want people to watch an original movie, you should encourage them, not to watch the original, but to watch the remake. This is the most likely way to get them to watch the earlier version. “Watch the original instead” usually has only one effect: the person ends up watching neither.
I think this one is more than likely the root of most of the remake anxiety. But I still refuse to give carte blanche to the idea that “If people want to remake a movie, novel, or play, it is a sign they love the story so much, they want it to last.” This is certainly one possible motive, but by no means, the only one. Laziness and lack of creativity is most certainly another. Another is fear of the untried, and confidence in the tried and proven.

I also think that the first motive (Lee’s) rises to the top the longer it has been since the original was made. Generally, the more recent the remake, the more likely the other two motives become a greater factor. However, I think LMI is much more complicated than that. (I know this is a general discussion on remake hate, but it IS in the “Let Me In” section, rather than the “Off Topic” section, after all. That makes it fair game.)

MR bought the rights to the remake before LTROI was as well-received as it became later. LTROI was a “foreign language” film, which means it wouldn’t get wide exposure in the U.S. Matt Reeves knew this, or thought he knew this. His remake, IMO, was motivated by his personal connection with the story, and his desire to remake it for an American audience, where it might be better received. Unfortunately, it didn’t succeed; at least when compared to what are now considered blockbuster films these days. I personally loved LTROI because it had a powerful, mysterious effect on me – an effect I still haven’t quite figured out. It would have been a miracle if LMI had affected me the same way. But in many ways, it’s the same story, so I have no difficulty understanding how it could have had a similar effect on others. Lee Kyle is proof of this. And I certainly appreciate the fact that LMI has brought a whole new group of folks to the forum.
Lee Kyle wrote: I can’t help but wonder about remake hate. If a person really loved the original, would he not also love a remake, no matter how awful, simply because it exposes so many new people to the story? Does the remake hater really love the original at all? Or is he actually in love with being part of some elite group of cult fans who grovel before a film that almost no one has ever heard of, the discovery of which by a larger fan base would destroy that sense of elitist superiority? “The movie is only great until the masses realize it’s great: then I must move on to a new movie to nurture my sense of supremacy.”
If this is so, the key to abolishing remake hate is, ironically, getting masses of people to watch and fall in love with the original. Once commoners discover the original, remake haters will move on to a new movie that no one has ever heard of. Whatever it takes to protect that snobbish air.
Repel the remake haters: engage in en masse love of the original such that the original no longer satisfies remake-haters’ need to appear elite.
Again, I don’t see any evidence to support any of the above negative motivations for remake-hate, at least from members of this forum. But if the shoe were on the other foot, and LMI had come first, and if I had joined this forum full of expectations and found that many folks here had negative feeling about my beloved LTROI, I might feel the same way.
We never stop reading, although every book comes to an end, just as we never stop living, although death is certain. (Roberto Bolaño)

gymmy64
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:05 pm

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by gymmy64 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:11 am

The OP's post goes to a lot of trouble to demonstrate legitimacy for a term that doesn't really require it, in my opinion. At least in terms of motion pictures, remakes have been a staple since the era of silent movies. Even Alfred Hitchcock remade his own film---the 1934 The Man Who Knew Too Much---in 1956. The remake aversion (I think hate is too strong a word, though it rhymes)I believe is relevant here is the negative reaction to the relatively recent practice of American filmmakers remaking films from other countries shortly after their release. As PeteMork noted, the OP wrote his editorial in the LMI forum, so I'm going to refer to LMI specifically.

I suspect that a lot of the resentment against these sort of remakes is because "Hollywood" is doing the remaking. I say this because I noticed a considerable amount of resentment against the idea of an American remake of LTROI in 2008, before LMI even existed or had a name. There were many people who were excited at the prospect of another take on the novel, but it was obvious that a very vocal faction existed who let it be known on a daily basis that they were tired of American filmmakers "stealing" films from abroad and Americanizing them. While some of the reactions may have been based on the relatively poor track record of some of these remakes, I could also detect that at least some were using this criticism as yet another way to bash the American film industry. I firmly believe if France, India, or Japan had remade LTROI, you wouldn't have seen the same reaction, at least not initially.

That was the remake "aversion" I noted with LMI in particular, at least until the film was released. It has died down considerably since that time, although I am aware that the LTROI/LMI debates continue. :D I know that there are people here and in other places who don't care for LMI for various reasons, but it was one of the better reviewed films of 2010 and, I think, an example of a good remake. It appears to be tricky endeavor to remake a good film even when the same personnel from the original are involved, so I think Reeves and company should get at least some credit for succeeding where many have failed. I believe that is primary reason for the bias against remakes; so many of them haven't worked in the recent past, they are almost expected to be bad.

User avatar
Totengeist
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:38 am
Location: Oceanside, CA

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by Totengeist » Thu Nov 28, 2013 4:31 am

Wow. The analytical prowess of some of the members of this forum amazes me. It's also somewhat intimidating as someone who doesn't tend to analyze much of anything in media. (I prefer to just enjoy it. I've heard too many movie critics say that they can't enjoy a movie anymore because they can't turn off that part of themselves.) I'll throw in my two cents regardless and see what I get out of it.
PeteMork wrote:Shelly once wrote, “Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass, stains the white radiance of Eternity.” In the worst-case scenario, there may be only Lee’s three types of stories, but there are billions of readers, each of whom reads through his own, unique dome of glass. Some of them may even be inspired to write something NEW as a result. And I stress ‘new’ deliberately. There may be only 3 ‘categories’ of stories, but there are an infinite number of ways to tell one of these stories, all more different from one another than those original three categories are from each other. The significance of these simplistic categories of differences is completely lost in the background noise of these wonderful tales, which we then read through our own murky domes, and retell ad infinitum. Three types of stories? What a boring idea this is! It makes me hope that, rather than a finite number of types of stories, there is a finite number of artless ideas in the world.
To piggy back on this thought, I think the idea of the domes of many-coloured glass applies not only to the story itself, but also to what elements of a story draw in the viewer/reader/whatever. I, for example, don't tend to care much about plot because I don't tend to analyze movies much. In that I'm probably the 'common' movie-goer and predictability doesn't affect me as much because I don't tend to pick up on little things. I can still be surprised by even some predictable stories.

I also tend to be more engaged by characters and character interactions than with what happens to those characters. To me, the entirety of Hakkan's plot is almost irrelevant because what's important to me is the interaction between Eli and Oskar. This is also why I feel I can enjoy both films. While there is a lot of similarity between them, I feel that the acting makes Eli and Abby and Oskar and Owen different characters. They interact differently and are therefore still interesting to me

Other people may not focus as much on characters as I do or want more of a full package (characters, plot, cinematography, etc) and that's OK. Sometimes I wish I was more able to analyze the way some of you guys do, but then I see the flame wars and change my mind. :)

I may have completely missed the point, but I figured I'd finally comment on something interesting. Can't integrate into the community if I'm just lurking. :D

Lee Kyle
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by Lee Kyle » Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:30 pm

sauvin wrote:Since the level of intelligence and education in this forum is generally much higher, much further-reaching, much deeper and much better informed by what I'll term very simply "social graces", people who are impacted by this public warning should already know who they are, and what will probably happen if further unpleasantness or uncivil behaviour should occur

You're right that the level of intelligence and education is much higher on this forum than on the internet as a whole. But my dream remains unmet: intelligent people analyzing Let Me In without reference to the source material. The movie stands on its own, and can be analyzed on its own.

This doesn't make it good, of course. Either way, it can be evaluated as an independent work (and it is much more profitable to analyze the movies as independent works). Reference to LTROI while analyzing LMI cheapens both movies. They stand or fall on their own, without reference to each other.

How long can a thread on the LMI board last without reference to LTROI? That's the final bar of our level of intelligence.

User avatar
CyberGhostface
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:43 am

Re: An Analysis of Remake Hate

Post by CyberGhostface » Wed Dec 04, 2013 11:15 pm

But my dream remains unmet: intelligent people analyzing Let Me In without reference to the source material. The movie stands on its own, and can be analyzed on its own.
LMI is simply too dependent on Alfredson's film that the original will always be the elephant in the room. It's like analyzing the Psycho remake without referencing the Hitchcock film.
No banaaaanas?

Post Reply

Return to “Let Me In”